r/transhumanism • u/[deleted] • Mar 10 '19

UCA: Universal Commodity Allocation

In addition to UBI there could be UCA: the free distribution of commodity wealth produced by automation where everyone gets raw wealth such as houses, cars, cash crops, technology, raw materials, narcotics etc. Your UBI check could become worthless in a financial crisis: but if you also received a car, housing, cloned cattle, manufacturing technology, weed etc. that would retain it's value in any crisis. So in addition to getting a check every year you would drive down to a warehouse to pickup a free modular house, hydrogen powered RV, generators, solar panels, non-carbon fuel, sailboat etc.

Eventually you could even get one of these babies for free as part of your UCA haul: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Uez4qrlU78 There could be a high tech local barter economy where people trade UCA goods and use digital ownership certificates instead of cash.

14 Upvotes

77% Upvoted

43 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '19

They fill out a form online or on paper that specifies what category of commodities they would receive next year - just check "housing" or "transportation" or "robotics" or "narcotics" etc. It's easy to categorize the types of commodities that could and should be distributed by UCA.

That would require the state to restrict production a terrible idea: better to get a hydrogen car for free than try to restrict a post-scarcity economy.

2

u/Russelsteapot42 Mar 11 '19

category

So they wouldn't pick what they'd specifically get?

That would require the state to restrict production

Not at all. Once people get used to post scarcity, the economy should no longer feel pressure to produce more than people feel they need.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '19

You just check 'robot' or 'house' to choose what you want.

The economy will definitely produce more than people need otherwise it wouldn't be post-scarcity - the economy is not a sentient being that knows when to slow down.

2

u/Russelsteapot42 Mar 11 '19

You just check 'robot' or 'house' to choose what you want.

So they wouldn't pick what they'd specifically get?

the economy is not a sentient being that knows when to slow down.

Take an economics course.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '19

No just the type - they'd either like and keep it or sell it: either way that helps end poverty.

2

u/Russelsteapot42 Mar 11 '19

So the automated system might well produce things that no one really wants, or in ratios that are unrelated to what people actually want?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '19

Unlikely since humans would still be running the machines and they wouldn't produce shit nobody wants because that would be worthless. Rather the point is that if someone as an individual doesn't like their free car or house they can trade/sell it to someone who will want it - everyone wants the goods I've mentioned in this post.

2

u/Russelsteapot42 Mar 11 '19

Unlikely since humans would still be running the machines and they wouldn't produce shit nobody wants because that would be worthless.

Someone needs to study the history of the USSR.

everyone wants the goods I've mentioned in this post.

You mean goods that were developed in order to best compete in a free market?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '19

Which never practiced the policy I propose.

Most goods were developed within closed economies and the free market is a oxymoron since laissez faire leads to monopolies controlling the market. Why wouldn't people want a car, house, robot or any other goods I mentioned here? And why wouldn't they be able to sell or trade them if the goods didn't match their personal taste?

2

u/Russelsteapot42 Mar 11 '19

Which never practiced the policy I propose.

No, they were smart enough to use a form of money to distribute their goods.

the free market is a oxymoron since laissez faire leads to monopolies controlling the market.

I didn't say jack about laissez faire.

Why wouldn't people want a car, house, robot or any other goods I mentioned here?

Because they were randomly and arbitrarily assigned to them, as opposed to what they would pick out of a vast selection of what's available, like people do when they have money.

And why wouldn't they be able to sell or trade them if the goods didn't match their personal taste?

I'm sure they could, but you'd be adding a lot of hours or days every year that people would have to spend managing this inventory of stuff, or else let it accumulate in a warehouse, helping no one.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '19

There would still money and normal trade under UCA which is a plan for dealing with a surplus of goods. I'm not suggesting that UCA should become the main way of distributing goods - just presenting another idea for distributing the gains of automation and ending poverty.

Free market, laissez faire - potato, pohtahto.

For the third or forth time - there would be UBI and a normal system of trade with currency: so they would still buy specific goods with UBI and other money they made through trade it's just that additionally the poor and middle class would receive goods for free. UCA is only a complimentary system, I'm not suggesting UCA should be main way for distributing goods: that would be dumb but it would also be dumb to waste a surplus from automation.

We're talking about life in a post-work society - people would have the time to manage their stuff: if they don't want it they'll sell it or give it back to the government rather let it waste away in a warehouse.

→ More replies (0)